Farkas v Ping; Wang v Farkas

[2013] NSWCA 440

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Stay pending appeal
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Construction of stay orders
5. › Whether stay conditional on strict compliance with time limit for lodging security
6. › Whether late lodgement of bank guarantee activated stay
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Stay pending appeal
3. › Security for judgment debt
4. › Bank guarantee as alternative to writ of execution
5. › Whether judgment creditor obliged to remove writ registration despite late lodgement of security
6. › Whether judgment creditor doubly secured
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory orders
3. › Construction of court orders
4. › Whether time limit in one sentence of order was condition precedent to operative stay in another sentence

Quick Take

Where an interlocutory stay order contains an operative stay provision in one sentence and a time-limited obligation in a separate sentence, the time limit does not operate as a condition precedent to the stay unless the order expressly so provides. A judgment creditor who holds both a bank guarantee and a registered writ may be directed to remove the writ where the interlocutory regime contemplated the bank guarantee as a substitute for the writ, not an addition to it.

Case Details

Citation[2013] NSWCA 440

CourtNSWCA

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

Cited by1

2014Wang v FarkasNSWCA 29

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in